Category: USWNT

Welcome to American Soccer: Here’s the Entrance Fee

Posted on by RJ Allen

This is the second article in the series “Welcome to American Soccer,” which focuses on equal treatment and access to soccer in the United States. The articles focus on where U.S. Soccer stands on a variety of issues and where they need to improve.

At an event ahead of last year’s World Cup, a group of ESPN commentators gathered in Manhattan to discuss the upcoming tournament. As the conversation shifted to the United States, who would be missing the highest-level men’s competition for the first time in 32 years, Herculez Gomez went off on the pay-to-play system that operates in the United States.

Gomez admitted that he never would have been able to play soccer had it not been for certain people stepping up to help. He and his brothers had a benefactor who wrote an annual check of $25,000 and a coach that was willing to drive an extra 45 minutes to and from practice.

“It’s very difficult for young immigrant families to pay to play,” Gomez said. “Oftentimes these Latin American kids—it’s not just Mexican-American kids, it’s all walks of life—get overlooked because they don’t have the funds. It’s very much a suburban sport.”

Shaka Hislop was the goalkeeper for Trinidad and Tobago in their 2006 World Cup experience. Now, he’s raising his kids in America, and he’s seen first-hand how much of an investment is required.

“It’s expensive. In all honesty, unless you earn a certain amount you just can’t stay in the game,” Hislop said. “That’s a detriment of the wider player pool, and, honestly, I don’t know what the other option is. There are a lot of opportunities in the game, but they come at a cost and as a result, I think a significant portion of the talent pool is being overlooked.”

Soccer in the United States operates as a “pay-to-play” system. If you want to make it to the highest levels of U.S. Soccer, you’re not going to get there by playing in your recreational league. Instead, you’ll need to join a travel or club team, where costs usually exceed thousands of dollars. Children who come from middle- or lower-class backgrounds, who can’t afford $3,000 a year just to play their sport, never have a chance of being noticed and may never be introduced to soccer in the first place.

This problem has been confirmed by studies on the topic. Roger Bennett and Greg Kaplan published a study in 2013 on the pay-to-play system in the U.S. They compared the background of each U.S. men’s national team member from 1993 to 2003 to each NBA all star and NFL pro bowler over the same period. Using hometown zip codes as an indicator for socio-economic status, the study found that soccer players come from communities that had higher incomes, educational and employment rankings, and were whiter than the U.S. on average. By comparison, NBA and NFL players came from places that ranked below the average on the same indicators.

In many ways, the pay-to-play system has become accepted as an unfortunate reality. Most people understand that it is a problem, but it’s almost impossible do anything about it without reaching the highest levels of U.S. Soccer. But there has been more discussion around it in the last year or two, spurred by two events: the U.S. Soccer presidential election and the CONCACAF World Cup Qualifiers.

During the U.S. Soccer presidential election, many candidates mentioned pay-to-play in their platform and campaigning. Hope Solo made the pay-to-play system central to her argument. She started her announcement by explaining her own experiences with the pay-to-play system, and shared that she wouldn’t have made it without a lot of help from friends, family, and her community. She went on to talk about her belief that the problems in U.S. soccer start at the youth level.

“Soccer has always been a middle class sport and in more recent times, has become an upper middle class sport,” Solo said. “Some of the best clubs around the country charge each youth player between $3000-$5000 per season. I have personally witnessed young players heartbroken over the financial reality that they could no longer pursue their dream.”

Solo’s raw approach to the topic of pay-to-play, and the boldness of her run overall, got the attention of a lot of people. But the issue of pay-to-play also seemed impossible to ignore after the U.S. men’s national team failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.

Based on population alone, the United States should have an over-abundance of top-level soccer talent. Many have suggested that the United States could be one of the best soccer countries in the world if we made the game accessible to all people, from all walks of life. But because of pay-to-play, all kids aren’t being given the same opportunities. And as long as certain communities are denied the chance to be successful, the U.S. can never reach its full potential.

Despite the roaring voices of disapproval, there have been very few concrete proposals of how pay-to-play might end. And when former U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati was asked about it during the elections, he offered little hope that the highest levels of soccer are seriously thinking about change.

“There’s nowhere in the world that has no pay-to-play,” Gulati said. “What you want to make sure of is that anybody can afford it. But you have millions of kids playing, and the thought that we’re going to end play-to-play is nonsensical.”

Gulati might be right. But there is another reason why some people are so desperate to keep pay-to-play alive: it is a multi-billion-dollar industry. It seems that U.S. Soccer, like many industries, will go where the money is, even if that means leaving some kids behind.

Which seems like odd behavior for an organization deemed a “non-profit.”

So, maybe you can’t eliminate pay-to-play. Maybe the goal of making soccer available to anyone who wants to play is “nonsensical.” But we won’t know if we don’t try, so let that be our north star. U.S. Soccer has an obligation to make soccer in the United States open to people from all walks of life. People shouldn’t be left out because they can’t pay an entry fee.  

Backline Chat: Searching for Reasons to be Optimistic

Posted on by RJ Allen

Charles Olney (@olneyce): Welcome everyone to our Backline chat for the first week of April. We’ve got some international games coming up, and the start of the NWSL season just past that on the horizon. We’ll cover both of those topics this week. But to kick things off, let’s start with the national team. With the two upcoming matches against Australia and Belgium likely the sternest tests they’ll face before the World Cup begins, what are you looking for here?

RJ Allen (@TheSoccerCritic): Was Ali Krieger brought in to play or just to give the forwards a tougher test in training? That honestly is my biggest question.

Luis Hernandez (@radioactivclown): Ali has to be a headline. I don’t see how you don’t start her if you’re Jill.

RJ Allen: It would be cruel to sit her at 99. And I am not a huge fan of major hyperbole when it comes to all of this.

Charles Olney: Yeah, I actually do expect her to play, though I certainly wouldn’t put any money on it. But I would be surprised if she only plays once.

One thing I actually appreciate about Ellis is that she just doesn’t seem to care much about the hoopla around stuff like this. But I don’t think she’s completely unaware of how it would look.

RJ Allen: Honestly having Krieger makes me less nervous about Dunn. They can play a 3.5 back with Krieger in and I would be much more comfortable.

Allison Cary (@findingallison): I agree.

RJ Allen: The best and worst (if you’re Ellis) thing about Krieger is she will stay back if she feels she needs to.

Charles Olney: I think I’m one of the lone voices that has generally been pretty happy with Sonnett out there, but there’s no denying that fullback is a massive weak spot for a team that’s pretty stacked everywhere else.

RJ Allen: I think Sonnett is more or less fine but she is not *really* an outside back.

Charles Olney: That said, I also think Krieger just isn’t really up to this level anymore.

Or an outside back anymore either, really.

I would be happy to be proven wrong about that, though. I’ve always been a fan of Krieger.

RJ Allen: I think Krieger at 80% is still better than 100% of Dunn at outside back though.

Charles Olney: Well, I won’t belabor the point, but all of this is yet another reason why it’s frustrating that Ellis proved so hopeless at organizing a back three. It would be a pretty clean solution to this particular weakness, if they could just do it.

Luis Hernandez: It’s also fair to say that Ali hasn’t had match minutes in a while and if she did start against the Matildas, well that may be interesting…

Charles Olney: Any other issues on your mind about these games? What do you expect in the midfield? More Sam Mewis maybe? More Pugh for some reason?

RJ Allen: Please let Sam Mewis play.

Allison Cary: I’d like more Mewis, please.

Anthony Merced (@nycsportsworld): At some point they have to show what kind of energy level they’ll have in France. I feel like these games are that. SheBelieves felt like an intentional mess which is “okay” but things needs to be smoother in these games.

Charles Olney: It is weird that they scheduled all these games, but it’s hard to identify what they’ve actually gotten out of them…other than wiping away a lot of the momentum from 2018.

Anthony Merced: Truth is USWNT is the only commodity US Soccer is running that anyone cares about.

So they are trotting them out for games that are very unnecessary and the team has to balance it.

RJ Allen: I would honestly like to see Morgan/Press/Heath and Pinoe “set free”. Sometimes it feels like the system is somehow just hoping they will have a great moment and win it vs setting them up and letting those moments come naturally.

Luis Hernandez: Pugh hasn’t done herself any favors with her recent run with the squad.

RJ Allen: Pugh also has the “kid savior” mantle that was given to her.

Luis Hernandez: I’m noticing a tread if you ask me. It starts and stops with Ellis as coach

RJ Allen: I don’t think anyone can live up to who she was when she bust on to the team. It’s like a pitch that blows people away year one and then people figure out.

Anthony Merced: Hopefully she survives that. It’s hard when that title weighs on you in big tournaments.

Charles Olney: It’s crazy to think how long she’s been around, and how young she still is. There’s all the potential in the world there still, but it’s been almost a full year since she’s really been any good.

Allison Cary: Yeah, she carries a lot on her shoulders for a player that still has a lot of her career ahead of her (and thus, a lot of improvement. Hopefully)

Charles Olney: Alright, any predictions for these matches?

Luis Hernandez: I’m on record. I think the US wins both matches.

RJ Allen: US does not win against the Aussies and then takes Belgium out back behind the woodshed.

Allison Cary: I think the US could lose or draw to Australia. Beats Belgium.

Anthony Merced: Feel the same way. Australia is really good.

Charles Olney: I’ll go with two wins, I suppose. But it’s been a long time since the US has really controlled a game against Australia.

Luis Hernandez: Is playing at altitude a factor at all?

RJ Allen: Maybe but not enough I think it will change much of anything. Australia has been there for a few days.

Charles Olney: So, staying on the national team, but moving off the pitch, the continuing cold war over equal pay continues apace. The most recent move was recently announced, with Luna Bar providing the cash to cover the gap in prize money for the men’s and women’s teams.

Big deal? Weird PR campaign? Signal of more to come?

Anthony Merced: Very weird PR. US Soccer can easily address this and come out looking better but instead things like this happen.

Allison Cary: Because it’s coming from a private corporation and not the federation, that limits how “big of a deal” it can be. It’s not a long-term solution, just a PR stunt. That being said, glad they are getting something out of it.

Luis Hernandez: It’s a weird PR campaign for sure. A nice touch, but still weird.

Allison Cary: I do think it looks bad for US Soccer. Which hopefully pushes them.

RJ Allen: It’s so weird but I am glad they are getting the money? I feel torn to be honest.

Luis Hernandez: I partly saw it as smart marketing with the USWNT PA.

Charles Olney: On the whole, it seems to me that the players are winning their social media campaign – but it’s more that US Soccer has been terrible and less that they’ve done a fantastic job.

Allison Cary: I’d largely agree with that assessment.

RJ Allen: I’m honestly not sure that USSF cares that much about any of this though.

Anthony Merced: USSF lives in a strange bubble where they think they can strike oil by paying foreign teams to come play in the United States.

Charles Olney: And I feel obliged to point out every time this stuff comes up that ‘equal pay’ is great, and I’m all for the USWNT getting fair compensation for their talents and labor. But it still does ring a little hollow when the equality is so strictly limited to the national team.

RJ Allen: A lot of it makes me just sigh.

Charles Olney: Same.

Allison Cary: I see where the national team can seem limited, but I think it’s a first step. We’re not gonna get equality between the leagues overnight. Hopefully this pushes things in the right direction.

Charles Olney: I think that’s right, Allison. Still, I would really like to see the solidarity be expressed a little more aggressively.

RJ Allen: The leagues are frankly not going to be equal in our lifetimes. That’s not to say we shouldn’t push forward and try though.

Allison Cary: Yeah, Charles, I definitely get what you’re saying. It’s hard not to feel like so many players are being left behind.

Charles Olney: It’s one of those terrible things where we put expectations on those who are treated unequally to care about those who are below them, while also still needing to fight for what they deserve. But just because it’s unfair doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a priority.

Luis Hernandez: seems like a reflection of our society

Anthony Merced: Absolutely a reflection of society. We like to pretend that there is equality (gender and race) but then there are glaring examples where the issues are very blatant. Just look at Latin American players in MLS and their treatment vs. European players.

Charles Olney: Alright, unless people have any other thoughts about the USWNT, let’s briefly look outside the US. There are a whole bunch of friendlies coming up. Any that you are particularly interested in? Any teams that still have something to prove as they work their way toward France?

Luis Hernandez: it frustrates me that soccer-crazed countries in central and south America are also not backing the women’s game there like they should be. I get it baby steps…

RJ Allen: I think England has a lot to prove.

They are going to want to show 2015 wasn’t a fluke.

Charles Olney: I’ve got my eye on Spain v. Brazil. This is a pretty weak version of Brazil but they were actually a little better in SheBelieves than I expected. And Spain is fascinating to watch develop.

Anthony Merced: It’s amazing how far Brazil has fallen.

Charles Olney: Yeah, England v. Canada should be good. That’s a team England really should beat, but who will be tough to play. We could learn a lot about both of them there.

Luis Hernandez: France should be bouncing back from the lost to Germany. Hope Japan does well.

Allison Cary: I’m not convinced on England yet. It will be interesting to see them face Canada. I agree that they have a lot to prove.

Charles Olney: I’m a little confused why the Dutch are ‘only’ playing Mexico and Chile? It seems like they could have used a tougher tune-up here? Mexico feels like the team you schedule for a couple weeks before the tournament to just get a game.

Allison Cary: Yeah, that isn’t exactly a challenging lineup.

Charles Olney: I wonder if it’s a matter of preference or if the FA just dropped the ball or something.

Luis Hernandez: I’m also going to keep an eye out on Sweden

Charles Olney: Okay, moving back to the US, let’s talk a little NWSL. The season is closing in. We can do a full leaguewide roundup next week. But for now, do you feel like you’ve learned anything from the preseason so far?

Luis Hernandez: Not me.

Anthony Merced: Sky Blue will be better, but I have no real evidence to prove that.

RJ Allen: I am team #PreseasonDoesNotMatter but I think the Portland event did show that playing other pro teams can be useful.

Luis Hernandez: Preseason can be taken with a grain of salt. It won’t tell you if your team is good, but if it’s bad then the early warning signs are there.

Charles Olney: Agreed there, RJ. Chicago won’t have liked to lose those games, but I think they’ll be in much better shape for having played them.

Anthony Merced: North Carolina is good but I feel like we already knew that.

Luis Hernandez: The Spirit played to a draw with the Tarheels, right? There could be a sign of trouble.

Charles Olney: They’ve definitely struggled with results across several of these games. Though they looked WORLDS better for the half that I did watch them against Bordeaux.

Luis Hernandez: Oh, and of course preseason isn’t great when you have season ending injuries for your team either.

Allison Cary: Luis is right. That sucks.

Charles Olney: Yeah, Sky Blue cannot catch a break, it seems. Though you do have to start wondering about training techniques when so many players are getting injured. Similar with Washington under Gabarra.

Luis Hernandez: Teah, that’s certainly a valid point. why are some teams more prone to injury?

RJ Allen: Trainers do not have consistent training from what I’ve heard.

Anthony Merced: NWSL teams don’t have deep conditioning coaching staffs.

Charles Olney: This was a major revolution in the men’s game in the 90s and early 2000s, with physical fitness coaches and nutritional people coming in to help players. And most of that has been shared on the women’s side. But it’s clearly not happening at the same level of detail, and especially not in the NWSL where the resources are so limited.

Anthony Merced: That leads to injuries.

Charles Olney: It does make me wonder if trying to mimic good methods, but failing to quite manage it, might end up being worse than doing nothing.

RJ Allen: A lot of it comes down to just not having the ability to do the same things, including the same testing, that would happen on the men’s side.

Anthony Merced: Also, from what I have seen, many of the preseason games have been on awful artificial pitches.

Charles Olney: Taking a step back slightly to look at the bigger picture, there’s been a conversation going on this week about the state of the NWSL in 2019. A lot of us are not thrilled. There’s still no commissioner (probably a permanent state at this point), no communications department at all, no official announcement about streaming, no new sponsorships. They canceled the Lifetime deal, supposedly to give them more flexibility to do things on their own. And since then…crickets. This feels bad.

Am I overreacting?

Anthony Merced: No, you’re not. It is very concerning.

RJ Allen: I think president has taken the title as commissioner.

Luis Hernandez: No, I check Yahoo Sports daily to see if anyone will update the soccer page

RJ Allen: I don’t think they are separate.

Allison Cary: The message seems to be that this is not a league looking to grow. And I don’t really mean adding new teams, but just getting more people involved. Raising the bar. Changing the status quo.

RJ Allen: The league feels like it’s trapped in quicksand. The harder it moves the deeper it sinks.

Luis Hernandez: the league is suppose to be holding teams accountable to these new standards. Is the league not clued in that it should go both ways. Then I listen to RJ and end up blaming USSF.

Charles Olney: The small counterpoints I’ll provide: the transition from Seattle to Reign FC was handled well, and is potentially a good sign that independent ownership can work. Chicago’s marketing approach is great, and a model for other teams. And Utah seems to actively be trying to grow, and might just be able to change the narrative about lackluster (non-Portland) MLS partnerships.

That’s me trying to be optimistic. Is it persuasive?

Allison Cary: It’s not all bad or all good. There are positives and negatives.

Luis Hernandez: don’t forget that Orlando made the commitment and hired a full time GM for the Pride. Or Houston increasing the size of the coaching staff. Seems like the teams if they have the will can get on the right path

Charles Olney: Good points. Even Sky Blue has made (some) progress.

It does feel like team-by-team you could tell a positive story about the offseason. It’s the leaguewide level that is troubling.

Allison Cary: True.

Luis Hernandez: In spite of the league, teams generally want to succeed

RJ Allen: And yet, they persisted.

Charles Olney: Well, we won’t reach any firm conclusions today. But as always it’s something to keep an eye on. Any final topics that people want to throw out there?

Luis Hernandez: I have a question for the group

Luis Hernandez: With the report that Ella Masar is leaving Wolfsburg at the end of the season, will she end up in the NWSL and if so where?

Allison Cary: I’d love to see her in the league, but not sure if she’ll find her way back here.

Anthony Merced: I think she’ll go to England.

RJ Allen: I was thinking England too.

Anthony Merced: Manchester United is heading for the D1 and they are going to spend some cash so that may be a landing spot.

Charles Olney: I wouldn’t be shocked if she ended up as a Laura Harvey surprise midseason move. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

And with that, we will close things out for today. Thanks for reading everyone. And as always, let us know if you have any topics you’d like to hear us discuss in future weeks!

Backline Chat: Becca Moros, Just for the GIFs

Posted on by RJ Allen

Charles Olney (@olneyce): Welcome to our Backline Soccer slack chat for the week. It’s been a long cold winter, but the NWSL is finally on its way back, and we are excited to get back into the swing of things.

We’re going to start things off with the preseason. We’ve had some roster trimming already, but most teams still have a lot to do before they’re down to fighting weight. What have you seen so far that looks interesting? Any teams that look poised for big things?

RJ Allen (@TheSoccerCritic): Houston’s new head coach James Clarkson releasing players he knew he wouldn’t want early to give them a chance to go to another team instead of keeping them for practice is something that stood out to me. It’s a small thing but it shows a shift.

Luis Hernandez (@radioactivclown): I’m surprised by the recent addition of Caitlin Farrell in Orlando. I didn’t expect her here, and a talent like her should make the competition for starting striker when the national team players are in France something to watch.

Charles Olney: Yeah, the Houston thing seemed like a nice move. Let people know where they actually stand; don’t just keep them around for the sake of keeping them around. As you say, it’s a small thing but it’s at least a signal that Clarkson might be on the right track.

Luis Hernandez: I was a little bummed to see Nickolette Driesse gone in NC. I had hoped she would find a way to stick with an NWSL team. Hopefully, she finds a team overseas.

Charles Olney: In theory, I like what they’re trying to do up at Washington. They still don’t really have any defenders, but at least from these opening games, it seems like there might be some more coherence to how they set up.

From reports, Sullivan has been working as a deep-lying playmaker with Huster doing the tackling in front of her. That has a lot of potential, and might be important for getting Sullivan back on track.

Allison Cary (@findingallison): I like the sound of that.

RJ Allen: It’s really hard with so little of the information to see in person. Some times preseason games are live tweeted but until we see some real soccer being played it’s hard for me to judge much of it.

Charles Olney: Luis, for Orlando, what are your thoughts about their midfield (or lack thereof)? On the most recent roster, they have a total of three (3) midfielders who aren’t college draftees or non-roster invitees. I know they’ve gotten by without much of a midfield for a couple years now, but…are they really going to keep this up?

Luis Hernandez: I think the Pride are deeper at midfield than how it’s listed on the roster. Camila is listed as a forward for example. I also really liked what I saw when Abby Elinsky was on the pitch for the team. I think there are two things to consider, 1) Dani Weatherholt is the veteran on the team who needs to step up, 2) Coach Marc Skinner’s message that he’s focused on developing the players he has to work with.

Charles Olney: It will certainly be interesting to see how they set up. Skinner has a good track record, and I’ll be curious to see what he does with the team.

Luis Hernandez: He mentions his time in Birmingham City where he had a starting goalkeeper who was 17 and he believes will eventually get time with the Lionesses in the future.

Charles Olney: I was a big Sermanni fan, and thought he managed to make an unbalanced roster work pretty well in 2017, but it didn’t seem like he had any great answers last year. And Elinsky is a nice point for Orlando. I wrote a piece about replacement level players, and Elinsky is a great example of someone who probably isn’t (at the moment) good enough to start regularly, but who can still add a lot of value by plugging gaps. And if you’ve got someone willing to work, there’s always potential to grow.

Luis Hernandez: The Pride will definitely have a new playing style which I’m curious how well it will work out.

Kat Farris (@farrisphotos): Labbe is back in NWSL with North Carolina.

Allison Cary: Yeah, happy to see Labbe back. And curious to see what role she plays in North Carolina.

Charles Olney: Any other thoughts about rosters? There hasn’t been much movement this offseason, but Washington has picked up some Australians. Dagny is back in Portland. Houston signed Sophie Schmidt recently. Anything that jumps to mind as potentially significant?

RJ Allen: I am very interested to see if Sky Blue has a defense this year with the move they made with Washington.

Luis Hernandez: The only announced preseason match with the Courage will be more measuring stick than anything else.

Charles Olney: Yeah, Sky Blue has to be one of the biggest question marks.

RJ Allen: I do not believe 538 is near the mark on how many points Sky Blue will have but I think they end up with more than in 2018.

Charles Olney: Looking at the roster, they’re actually not that bad in theory. But how will the group play together? How much are players willing to invest? Can they find a way to band together to solve problems when they pop up?

Allison Cary: Looking at the roster, they didn’t look that bad last year.

Charles Olney: Exactly.

RJ Allen: Allison is correct.

Charles Olney: I could easily see them hanging right there with the pack all season. They won’t lose almost anyone to the World Cup. And if the team spirit is high, they could scrounge plenty of points here and there. But if things start out bad, it’s easy to see everyone just hanging their heads and waiting for the axe to fall.

Allison Cary: Especially if things don’t change with the off-the-field situation. Or at least, don’t change enough.

Kat Farris: I had to reread that. I was having flashbacks of 2018 Pride

Luis Hernandez: I think the early part of the schedule favors Sky Blue and they could get a favorable result. I’m not going to bet the farm on a win just yet.

RJ Allen: I am a little surprise we’re not seeing more movement. Trades aren’t the most common thing in the NWSL but they happen more than they have this off season.

Allison Cary: Yeah, it’s been really quiet.

Charles Olney: Do you think it has something to do with it being a World Cup year? Maybe everyone is more focused on bolstering their ranks and not as worried about topline moves?

Luis Hernandez: Okay, RJ has a point, but I would say that traditional sellers like Orlando have started to switch things up and are holding assets more. Maybe GMs in the league are preparing for beyond 2019 with *whispers* expansion…

Kat Farris: Are national allocations official yet?

RJ Allen: Yes. They have been out for a few weeks.

Charles Olney: Speaking of which, what do people think about the allocations?

RJ Allen: Overall I wonder why the number is so low. They are able to have 4 or 5 more players allocated than they have. Which in a World Cup year you’d think you’d want those few players who might make the roster to already be on the payroll.

Luis Hernandez: There are limited allocations, I don’t know how many are called out in the CBA, but maybe the federation needs to be selective.

RJ Allen: They have a range they can pick from and from what I read they went with the minimum.

Luis Hernandez: I wonder how the lawsuit will eventually impact the CBA or future CBA negotiations

Charles Olney: And of those selected, it’s certainly hard to explain why Allie Long, for example, is still allocated and Davidson is not…assuming that you’re looking purely at value to the national team. But it’s pretty clear they’re looking at things beyond that. The question is whether that’s okay.

Luis Hernandez: I think Davidson needs to prove more to Ellis that she deserves it. Jane Campbell for example got allocated early without showing much

RJ Allen: It is odd that Morgan Brian is and Davidson isn’t, Long being another. But maybe Ellis is less sold on Davidson to the World Cup than we all think?

Kat Farris: It always amazes me how much of soccer revolves around not soccer

Luis Hernandez: I think it’s more contractual. That’s all I can think of which would explain it.

Kat Farris: Maybe they’re waiting to see a few more games from Tierna since coming back from injury?

Charles Olney: It seems pretty obvious to me that allocations are treated like a sinecure, where you have to really justify ‘taking one away,’ while a young player like Davidson can be effectively required to leave college early and then still not be granted an allocation.

Luis Hernandez: I really think the answer may be more simple than we realize. Like A-Rod being allocated for as long as she was.

RJ Allen: A-Rod had to be because she was on maternity leave. She couldn’t have it taken away during that window.

Luis Hernandez: Right. Maybe this is also a contractual allocation. Like maybe in the CBA there’s a provision for team veterans to have an extra allocation year before getting dropped

Charles Olney: It’s also weird that allocation decisions happen in December but aren’t announced until the spring and then don’t really ‘take effect’ until the start of the season in April. All of which is to say: the allocation system is terrible.

But, of course, the allocation system will be around a while longer, since it was bargained in the recent CBA. Which takes us nicely to our next topic…

What is going on with the US National Team and US Soccer?

RJ Allen: The difficulties the USWNT and USSF are having really do highlight the issues with the two very different systems the MNT and WNT work under.

The problem is neither party can control the reasons the two systems are so different. Which makes cases like this that much harder.

Luis Hernandez: RJ hit the nail right on the head.

Charles Olney: I think that’s an important point. It’s pretty clear to me that the system is not working well, and that US Soccer has some obligation to do more than they are currently doing. But it’s also clear that there’s not really a simple solution. Given the different dynamics, any treatment is necessarily going to look very different across the two teams.

RJ Allen: But why things like meal pay and flights are different is just USSF being cheap on the women’s side. On top of being plain stupid when it comes to marketing and things like kits.

Luis Hernandez: If player compensation was exactly the same between the men and women, there would be serious impacts in the league.

Allison Cary: Yeah, there are some things that are related to the different contracts/systems and some things that I think that USSF just thinks they can get away with.

Charles Olney: Exactly. US Soccer does actually have some decent arguments in a few places. But it’s incredibly hard to take their side overall when they’re so obviously failing to meet minimal standards in the places where it would be really easy to do so.

Luis Hernandez: I like that USSF now uses charter planes to move the USWNT like they do for the men. I dislike that USSF doesn’t think a women’s open cup is worth having. I had to get that in.

Charles Olney: RJ, can you develop that point about the kits a little more? It’s blown up a bit on twitter in the last 24 hours, but is worth digging into since it’s such a good demonstration.

RJ Allen: US Soccer’s issue is they are just flat out bad at some things. Right now if you go to their website you can’t buy a women’s kit. And men’s kits are not able to have three stars.

They are leaving a ton of money on the table by holding the kits back until May for the women and not allowing men’s cut kits to have three stars at all.

Charles Olney: I bought one of the three star kits a couple years ago when they were available. But if I remember correctly it took them almost a year after the 2015 tournament to actually make them. And now they’re unavailable again.

Allison Cary: I was just talking to a male friend earlier this week who wants to buy a three-star kit and is just waiting for them to come out.

RJ Allen:  I do not understand the argument I’ve seen made that it will “confuse” people to see a men’s cut jersey with three stars. Of all the arguments to pick, that is the dumbest.

Luis Hernandez: I’m more than happy to correct anyone that would confuse a men’s three star kit if they thought that was for the men’s team

Allison Cary: I didn’t even know that argument existed and that is the worst.

Luis Hernandez: Not to give the federation any breaks, but is that also on Nike?

RJ Allen: Nike has not had this issue with other countries though, Luis.

Charles Olney: My understanding is that Nike is the one making the choices about what to make available. But my understanding is also that huge organizations like US Soccer has the ability to discuss marketing strategy with Nike. Basically, if they genuinely cared about getting their product out, it would be out.

Luis Hernandez: The kit supplier should know better when it’s the like of Nike. I’m assuming they want to make money selling WNT gear.

RJ Allen: They are assuming there is no market or a market not worth investing in. And then saying “see there is nothing here” to not have to do more work in growing that market. For an org that loves money, both Nike and USSF, I do not understand the choices in kits or marketing.

Allison Cary: Sexism over money? It’s like the sexism is so embedded that, as RJ said, they’re convinced they won’t sell without any proof that’s true. Like you could be making money but your sexism is preventing you from being logical.

Charles Olney: Which really brings us around the core of the problem with all of these arguments about equality, market demand, revenue, and so forth. When you have institutions that are uninterested or unwilling in putting in the work to grow, develop, and sell a product, that product is obviously going to struggle more than if you have an enthusiastic actor trying to get everyone involved. With so many of these conversations, we’re talking about years, decades, of neglect. Which makes it impossible to assess what ‘really’ should be going on.

We saw 60,000 turn up for a women’s soccer match in Spain this weekend. We’ve seen huge numbers in Mexico. We’ve seen some of the big European countries selling out their pre-World Cup matches. Those are all great signs. But they’re also a reminder that there is potentially a LOT of demand, but demand which doesn’t have clear avenues for expression a lot of the time.

Allison Cary: I know a lot of people who are soccer fans. They watch men’s soccer because it is accessible, and they would support women’s soccer, but they feel it is such a struggle to get access.

Luis Hernandez: But are we underestimating the popularity of soccer in other parts of the world. I find a lot of people across the board that still have a hangup on watch/supporting a sport because it’s played by women

Allison Cary: I’m by no means trying to say those people don’t exist, I just think that we shouldn’t assume everyone is like that. When I was in England, there were plenty of old, white men who watched the Chelsea women’s games. And I spoke to more who said they would watch the matches if they were on TV or go to games if they were played at the same stadium as the men.

Luis Hernandez: There should be more fans of sports that watch/support the game regardless of the gender of the players.

Allison Cary: I also met people who automatically dismissed women’s soccer simply because it was played by women, so I’m not trying to say everyone would watch it if it were available, but it would matter.

Kat Farris: You can’t sell a product only the dedicated few know exists and expect to increase your market/grow the game

Charles Olney: I think that it’s absolutely true that there are a lot of soccer fans who aren’t realistically available for women’s soccer marketing. They have expectations and aren’t interested in changing them. But it’s also true that the worldwide soccer audience is unbelievably large, and you don’t need to persuade everyone. Just getting the people on the margins, who might be willing to take a look, could go a long way.

And of course social expectations do change, even for people who seem dyed-in-the-wool. I say this as someone with family in Atlanta who cared 0.00% about soccer until a couple years ago and NEVER would have thought it was possible that they’d follow the sport.

Luis Hernandez: I was going to say something on a lack of a league TV deal, but I didn’t want to go off the rails.

Charles Olney: A topic for another week, for sure.

Alright, let’s take a little time to get back to things on the pitch before we close up for the week.

Since we last chatted, the US completed the SheBelieves Cup. It didn’t go well. But it also wasn’t a disaster. How is everyone feeling about the team at this point?

RJ Allen: I do not for the life of me understand why Sam Mewis is not starting every game.

Charles Olney: I’ve been a mild skeptic in the “Mewis would fix everything” debates. But even so, I completely agree. I don’t think she’d fix everything, but she sure would help.

RJ Allen: I think Dunn is a great player but she has been made into a pure attacker and her defending during a World Cup scares me. Ellis has to find another outside back and hope O’Hara stays healthy.

Allison Cary: I completely agree on the Dunn point.

Luis Hernandez: I’m not a believer in Rose being a starter when we have the roster at full strength. I would rather see Mewis, Ertz and Horan.

RJ Allen: I do wonder overall why the USWNT pool of outside backs is as weak as I think we’ve ever seen it.

Charles Olney: It is weird. I feel like two years ago we were marveling at all the young exciting fullbacks who were coming up. And they’ve pretty much all flamed out.

RJ Allen: Honestly if Kristie Mewis hadn’t gotten hurt, I wouldn’t have minded her getting a look.

Charles Olney: I suppose it’s also worth noting that we’d arguably be having a different conversation if Hinkle had decided that she was okay wearing a pride jersey.

Luis Hernandez: Accurate.

Allison Cary: Yep.

RJ Allen: Hinkle showed herself not to be someone the team could depend on. That is the biggest USWNT sin.

Luis Hernandez: I don’t feel good that Short didn’t get playing time.

Charles Olney: With Short, I have to imagine there’s something about how she’s doing in training. Because it’s such an obvious HUGE problem right now, and based on her form of a year or so ago, it seems obvious that she should be getting some time. But she did miss a lot of time last year, and I’m not sure she ever really got back to her peak for Chicago. So maybe she just has genuinely lost a step and it’s been obvious in training?

RJ Allen: I do still wish the US would call up the eligible outside backs on each team and just give them a go. Honestly just try everyone and see who sticks. Becca Moros just for the gifs.

Luis Hernandez: I think club play is going to favor more for those bubble roster players and perhaps we’ll see someone surprise us and make the jump to the national team.

Charles Olney: [Whispers]: Sofia Huerta?

RJ Allen: Charles. Don’t be mean. Houston doesn’t even play her as an outside back.

Charles Olney: I mean, she still can’t really defend, but…what evidence do we have that Ellis cares about that? Is all I’m saying.

RJ Allen: Honestly have HAO play outside back. At least she would be good for team chemistry.

Charles Olney: I detect no lies there.

RJ Allen: One last thing I want to throw out there is the fact that the US Soccer Hall of Fame vote is going to happen soon. And there are some USWNT players up for possible selection.

Eligible Players: David Beckham | Gregg Berhalter | Carlos Bocanegra | Shannon Boxx | Edson Buddle | Rachel Buehler Van Hollebeke | Lori Chalupny | Lauren Cheney Holiday | Steve Cherundolo | Brian Ching | Kenny Cooper | Jeff Cunningham | Todd Dunivant | Kevin Hartman | Frankie Hejduk | Thierry Henry | Stuart Holden | Eddie Johnson | Chris Klein | Karina LeBlanc | Amy LePeilbet | Eddie Lewis | Lori Lindsey | Stephanie Lopez Cox | Pablo Mastroeni | Clint Mathis | Heather Mitts | Jaime Moreno | Ben Olsen | Pat Onstad | Heath Pearce | Troy Perkins | Steve Ralston | Cat Reddick Whitehill | Donovan Ricketts | Leigh Ann Robinson Brown | Tony Sanneh | Homare Sawa | Kate Sobrero Markgraf | Bakary Soumare | Taylor Twellman | Aly Wagner | Abby Wambach | Josh Wolff

Luis Hernandez: Excellent point RJ.

RJ Allen: Look, Boxx, Chalupny, Holiday, Sawa, Markgraf and Wambach should get in, in a landslide. But they likely won’t other than Wambach.

Luis Hernandez: I wouldn’t be repping Orlando right, if I also didn’t mention Tiffany Roberts who now coaches at UCF. She’s on the ballot in the Veteran category

Charles Olney: The US Soccer Hall of Fame is a weird institution, covering the men (a not very successful group of players compared to the rest of the world), the women (the best group of players in the world), and foreign players who have had a big impact here. It’s just kind of hard to even comprehend how you can jam all those together in a coherent way.

Allison Cary: Very true.

Charles Olney: Like, Amy LePeilbet was one probably top 20 at her position in the whole world, right? But she’s like 12th on this list for women who deserve induction. Compare to someone like Carlos Bocanegra, who was one of the KEY players for the US men over a full decade, and one of our most successful players in a top European league. But…at his best, he was a useful player for a mediocre Fulham team.

I also saw someone pointing out that when/if Markgraf gets inducted, the entire starting XI for the 99ers will be inducted. Which seems bizarre. How can the whole team be in the Hall of Fame? Except, of course they’re all in. They’re all ridiculously good!

RJ Allen: It is not enough to have been great during your years of international and domestic play if you’re on the women’s side. The women have five current forwards that would make the hall of fame for nearly every other country in the world. It’s not enough to have simply defined your position internationally during your time on the national team, you have to be the best to have ever played it.

Either the standard for the men seeking induction needs to be raised to meet the level of Hamm and Overbeck and the rest of the supremely talented women who have made it into the Hall or the standard for the women needs to come back down to earth.

Charles Olney: To be honest, I don’t really see it getting worked out. I think it will just continue to stumble along like a drunken sailor, getting enough of the big decisions right for people to continue talking about it, but not enough right to be a fully credible institution.

And with that, we will close things out for today. Thanks for reading everyone. And as always, let us know if you have any topics you’d like to hear us discuss in future weeks!

Did US Soccer Call Up Jaelene Hinkle to Avoid Litigation?

Posted on by RJ Allen

Jaelene Hinkle was called back into a US Women’s National Team camp last week. Given that Hinkle refused to play last year because she couldn’t accept wearing a rainbow pride jersey, many have seen the decision to bring her back as a betrayal of the US team’s supposed commitment to inclusion and equality. That this all happened so soon after the most recent month of pride only drove the point home further.

The ongoing conversations about this process are very important, and I encourage everyone to read some of the excellent articles on the subject, which I endorse wholeheartedly. However, in this piece, I want to focus attention on a narrower question: what is the potential legal liability here? And if any exists, does that explain the bizarre chain of events in the past week, in which Hinkle was called up, only to be left out of the group that will actually continue to the Tournament of Nations?

Let’s start by looking at what we actually know:

Last June, Hinkle was called up—after a fairly long hiatus away from the team—for a set of friendlies in Scandinavia. But once the pride uniforms were announced, she withdrew. Then, earlier this summer, she gave an interview to the 700 Club confirming what was already assumed: she had done so because she believed that wearing the pride uniform would violate her religious principles.

The critical questions: was US Soccer obligated to make accommodations for her religious beliefs? And were they legally permitted to blacklist her from future camps, if that is in fact what happened?

Title VII creates an obligation to accommodate sincerely held religious belief

The controlling rule here is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That law famously prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in employment, but also covers a number of protected categories. Specifically, it prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.

Broadly, that means that an employee can’t be fired for their religious beliefs, but it also creates a wide range of narrower obligations on employers to provide reasonable accommodations for their religious employees. As with many such laws, the devil is in the details, and what counts as ‘reasonable’ is open to dispute. But over the decades since the law was passed, we’ve received a great deal of clarification by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and by federal courts.

Specifically, they’ve said that employers are obliged to accommodate religious beliefs “unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer.”

In the athletic context, a general argument for uniform kits would likely constitute an insufficient defense against a claim for reasonable accommodation. For example, a devout Muslim player who wished to wear a hijab would likely have a strong case, absent decisive evidence that doing so would interfere with her ability to perform. Based on the same logic, Hinkle could argue that the pride uniform violated her religious beliefs and expect an alternative accommodation.

And while there are obvious differences between a hijab and a rainbow kit, the EEOC and the courts have both made clear that they don’t see policing the legitimacy of specific beliefs to be within their purview. So long as the belief is sincere, it receives this protection. In Hinkle’s case, while her belief may be misguided or even bigoted, there is no denying that it is sincerely held and religious in nature. Moreover, the courts have also been unwilling to litigate whether a given belief is an accurate reflection of their religious dogma. So the fact that other Christians on the team had no problem wearing the rainbow does not limit Hinkle’s rights of conscientious objection.

That said, there is extensive evidence supporting the right of employers to enforce uniform requirements over religious objections. For example, in Cooper v. Eugene School District, the Oregon Supreme Court found that the state could reasonably prevent a teacher from wearing religious dress while working, because the law served the purpose of promoting religious neutrality. In Goldman v. Weinberger, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the military to impose uniform policies by prohibiting a Jewish Air Force officer from wearing a yarmulke. These cases dealt with exceptional circumstances—with public institutions striving to produce public goods—but courts have also found in favor of private employers simply looking to successfully promote their industry (see Cloutier v. Costco, Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., etc.).

All of these cases suggest that Hinkle would face an uphill battle asking for a religious accommodation, but this does not mean there is no chance. Nor does it mean that US Soccer ought to feel safe from potential litigation. While Hinkle might not win a hypothetical case, it wouldn’t be a slam dunk either way, and US Soccer might well find themselves on the hook for some kind of reasonable accommodation to the pride uniform.

US Soccer isn’t a normal employer, but that may not matter

Things get even messier when you consider the nature of the employment here, with US Soccer differing from normal employers in several potentially significant ways.

First, as a subsidiary member of FIFA—the international body governing global soccer rules—the US team is constrained by a system of rules that limit its options. And FIFA’s equipment regulations state that “The Colours used for numbering and naming purposes shall be the same for all outfield players of the same team” (IV.5.4). Given this, US Soccer cannot simply accommodate Hinkle by permitting her to wear a non-pride variant. While it is possible that they could be persuaded to waive this requirement, FIFA is hardly known for its responsiveness, and it seems likely they would simply instruct the US to abandon the pride uniforms entirely rather than create an exception.

Given these facts, it is difficult to determine what would count as a ‘reasonable accommodation.’ It’s hard to credit the idea that they should abandon the pride uniforms entirely, since these constitute an important revenue stream, not to mention a form of political speech. If a company’s message is subject to veto by a single religious objection, speech is not free. It’s conceivable that the US would at least need to demonstrate a good-faith effort to consult with the appropriate FIFA body for a religious exemption, though even here the reputational costs would not be insignificant.

Second, US Soccer is also an idiosyncratic entity in the manner of its employment. For the limited set of allocated players, the US national team is their employer. But for floaters like Hinkle, their employer remains their club team, while the national team effectively sub-contracts their services for specific engagements. For this reason, once Hinkle declined the invitation to camp last summer, one could argue that she ceased to be an employee of US Soccer. This would not end the legal question, however. Employers are bound by Title VII even for temporary or contracted workers, and if the triggering move for Hinkle’s initial departure was an illegal imposition on her religious beliefs, this would poison the entire process.

Even if Hinkle can’t force an exception, she may be able to win a claim of blacklisting

Given the facts described so far, Hinkle likely has no legal argument for eliminating pride kits, nor would she likely be able to force an exception to uniform policy when those pride kits are used. However, she may well have a cause of action if her conscientious refusal was treated as a reason to blacklist her entirely. Such action could credibly be interpreted as ‘retaliation’ for the expression of a religious belief.

Proving a blacklisting case would be difficult, but not impossible. A big part of the argument would rely on establishing that Hinkle’s omission is because of her religious objections, rather than simply being due to performance. Here, one might note that she was hardly a mainstay in the squad before all these events. Indeed, her callup last June which precipitated these events was her first in over a year. One could argue that the subsequent lack of call-ups was simply a return to normal–a question of form, not anything more complicated. This is, in fact, what Jill Ellis said last month:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

But with all due respect to coach Ellis, this claim is hard to swallow. Hinkle is probably the best left back in the US pool at the moment, a point made clear by two consecutive excellent seasons in the NWSL. One could argue about how well club play translates to the national team environment, and it’s certainly plausible that she wouldn’t simply waltz into the starting XI. But considering the lack of depth at fullback and Hinkle’s excellent performances there for the last 18 months, it’s hard to believe that her exclusion has been driven by performance on the field.

One could argue that Hinkle turning down a call-up provides evidence of unreliability, which could discourage a coach from relying on her in the future. But if the basis for her refusal is a religious objection, the principles outlined above likely prohibit the national team from treating that as evidence of unreliability. Just as US Soccer is required to treat pregnancy as a legitimate reason for absence, and is obliged to give new consideration to any player post-pregnancy, they likely are required to treat Hinkle’s unwillingness to play in a rainbow kit as a justified sabbatical and evaluate her qualities independent of that knowledge.

Team chemistry does matter, but it’s not clear how much

However, this doesn’t settle the matter. Because soccer is a team game, and Hinkle’s presence might well affect team dynamics. After all, the national team squad contains several queer players (not to mention a queer coach), and plenty of others who have expressed strong sentiments in favor of equality. Introducing Hinkle into that environment could potentially be disruptive.

And this sort of ‘chemistry’ problem creates further legal wrinkles.  Consider Wilson v. US West Communications, in which Christine Wilson “made a religious vow or promise to God that she would wear a particular anti-abortion button” featuring a picture of an aborted fetus. The court accepted her right to describe this vow as religious in nature, and acknowledged that her employer was not permitted to forbid the action entirely. However, because the pin was creating significant distress for her coworkers, the court found that her employer could demand that she cover it up while at work. In this instance, the case for a hospitable work environment for all employees was balanced against Wilson’s right of religious expression.

How would this apply in the case of the US Women’s National Team? It’s hard to know for sure. However, it seems highly unlikely that US Soccer could credibly argue that Hinkle’s presence would constitute a severe disruption without making any further investigation. On questions of chemistry, the coaching staff may be able to offer expert speculation, but mere speculation probably does not provide a sufficient shield.

Does fear of litigation explain why Hinkle was called back, and then left out again? Quite possibly

I went into this topic assuming that the legal case for Hinkle’s return to the fold was unlikely. It seemed to me that coaching decisions are generally inscrutable, and that even vague gestures toward the value of team chemistry would be sufficient to protect US Soccer. After digging into the issue, I no longer find that as persuasive.

I do not think Hinkle would win a lawsuit, necessarily, but given the facts, it seems quite plausible that she could at least initiate proceedings. Whether any such conversations took place, I can’t possibly say. But it would not be surprising, given the facts, if the administrative arm of US Soccer insisted on her return, at least into the mix if not into the full squad. This could have been worked out directly with Hinkle, but may well have simply been a preemptive act to buttress their legal shield should litigation ever be enjoined.

If one wonders why the US called Hinkle back into camp, only to leave her behind once the tournament began, fear of litigation certainly would go some way toward providing an explanation.

Why Is USWNT So Far Ahead of Their Male Counterparts?

Posted on by RJ Allen

The United States Women’s National Team are the crème de la crème of women’s soccer, placing no lower than third in all seven World Cups and winning the tournament three times. They are gunning for their eighth straight World Cup appearance next year, and with it, the chance to defend the championship they won in 2015 in Canada. The team currently sits top of the FIFA Women’s World Rankings as well, where they have been ranked at either first or second since 2003.

In contrast, the USWNT’s counterparts, the United States Men’s National Team, are conspicuously absent at this year’s World Cup in Russia. The USMNT failed to qualify for the quadrennial showcase after a sorry loss to Trinidad and Tobago in their final Hexagonal World Cup qualifier. As a result, the US missed their 11th World Cup overall and first since 1986.

The USMNT’s shock setback comes hot on the heels of a strong showing in the 2014 World Cup, where The Stars and Stripes, then managed by Germany’s Jürgen Klinsmann, managed to get into the round of 16, only to fall to Belgium, 2–1. Interestingly, Belgium have built considerable momentum off of their impressive performances in Brazil, looking mighty impressive in Russia. The first European side to qualify for the World Cup per Ladbrokes’s in-depth preview, Belgium went blemish-free in the qualifiers, scoring an astonishing 43 goals in the process. In contrast, USMNT have regressed since that strong showing four years ago, with things coming to a head against Trinidad and Tobago.

Given the struggles of the men’s team, it’s only natural to wonder: Why is the USWNT so far ahead of their male counterparts?

Talent, clearly, is the main difference. The women’s team have some of the game’s best players, including Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Christen Press, Julie Ertz, and Becky Sauerbrunn, who can legitimately be considered among the finest on the planet. In years past, the team had Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Hope Solo, and Brandi Chastain. In short, the USWNT talent train is chugging along, routinely churning out elite soccer players. The NWSL, one of the most competitive women’s league in the world, is actually so full of world-class talent that some believe if North Carolina played in the next World Cup they would be one of the favorites to win.

The USMNT, on the other hand, have a dearth of world-class talent, especially now. Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey are towards the end of 30 and pretty much past their prime, while Christian Pulisic, the one player on the men’s team with legit A-level talent is still scratching the surface of his immense potential.

This talent disparity has caused another problem for the USMNT: they are caught between generations. Howard and Dempsey are 39 and 35, respectively, while squad regulars DaMarcus Beasley, Michael Orozco, Geoff Cameron, and Tim Ream are in their early 30s. The aforementioned Pulisic, meanwhile, is only 19 and is already burdened with being the best player the USMNT has by a mile. This means that the team is rolling with a mix of past-their-prime veterans and unproven youngsters with relatively no international experience. The USWNT, on the other hand, have no such problems, as they continuously parade talent-rich lineups fortified by veterans, in-their-prime superstars, and up-and-comers ready to make their mark on the sport. This means that every women’s team that the USWNT rolls out in international tournaments is well balanced, and neither too young to be overwhelmed by the bright lights of international play nor too old to get left behind.

The USWNT have also benefited from a stable, not to mention very capable, coaching staff. The fact that Jill Ellis and her assistants have steered clear from controversy certainly helps, too, as the players have been able to focus solely on football. Jürgen Klinsmann’s tenure with the USMNT, in contrast, was marred by controversial decisions that in many ways led to the German losing the confidence of the locker room. His replacement, Bruce Arena, was no better, with Yahoo! Sports sportswriter Nick Mendola ruing Arena’s clear preference for his favorite MLS players.

It helps, too, that the team has consistently won over a long period, which has allowed the USWNT to build a winning culture among a talented pool of players. A high standard has been set and this positive mentality has been passed down from team to team and is very prominent in the current USWNT.

Now, the women’s World Cup is still a year away, and with the men’s team not playing in the current tournament, the pressure is on for the USWNT to prevent a World Cup double whammy for the red, white, and blue. But given the sustained excellence of the USWNT, a trip to France in 2019 seems very likely, as does the chances of bringing the World Cup trophy home for the fourth time.

Route Two Soccer: Why the US Can’t Figure Out How to Break Down a Bunker

Posted on by RJ Allen

Why does the United States Women’s National Team struggle to break down compact, deep defensive teams?

In many ways, this has been the defining question of the two years since the US crashed out of the Olympics after failing to pick apart a very defensive Sweden. Hope Solo called them “a bunch of cowards” for playing that way. But Sweden weren’t cowards; they were just being practical.

Return to the question: why does the US struggle to break down a defensive block? Because everyone does. That’s why teams do it.

Soccer is a game of inches, of low margins and tiny probabilities. The default is for teams to not score, and it takes something special to upset that balance. Good teams still win because they possess the talent necessary to make the difference, but it’s hardly a certainty. We’ve all seen games where one team dominates but simply can’t break through, thanks to a goalkeeper standing on their head. Or games where the dominant team hits the crossbar three or four times. Just a few inches in one direction and they’d have cruised to victory.

This is frustrating, but if you’re the better team, the best you can do is expand the number of good shots you generate, and rely on your talented players to convert some of the chances.

Conversely, for weaker teams, it can make a lot of sense to play a defensive style. By reducing the chances available to both teams, you’ll hurt your own odds of scoring. But you’ll hurt the odds of the other team more. Playing defensively doesn’t change the basic structure of the match: the superior team is still superior and remains the favorite. But it can change the odds. By cutting down on the number of chances, you reduce their ability to exploit that superiority to the fullest extent.

Not every defensive approach is the same. At the extreme, teams can put all eleven players behind the ball, retreating deep into their defensive quadrant. In a more limited form, they can employ the classic ‘two banks of four.’ And there are plenty of ‘defensive’ setups that don’t necessarily rely on a lot of deep numbers but instead look to clog up the middle. The popular 4-2-3-1 setup can be quite defensive if both holding midfield players are more destructive than creative.

These all pose slightly different tactical problems. But when people talk about ‘bunkers,’ they usually mean teams who set up at least two lines of deep defense, conceding much of the midfield into order to shorten the space between their lines. The goal is to create two walls of bodies that close off the elusive ‘pockets of space’ that soccer commentators so love to talk about.

This generally makes for tactics that resemble nothing so much as the siege of a fortified Medieval castle. The superior team will unleash plenty of shots, but usually from distance, or from poor angles. They’ll have space to maneuver 30 yards from goal, but will have trouble getting any closer. They’ll have plenty of room on the wings to send in crosses, but will rarely get a clean head on the ball when it comes in.

When this sort of defensive play works, it’s usually down to a combination of three factors: good execution by the weaker team, poor execution by the stronger team, and luck.

The missing element here, often the most critical factor in other matches, is tactics. That’s because the whole point of deep defensive blocks is their capacity to severely limit the number of tactical issues in a game. There is no special sauce, no secret ingredient, no tactical innovation that will ‘solve’ this problem. A deep defensive block eliminates most of the spaces that players want to poke into. It jams up all the locks that smart tactics are trying to pick. The whole point is to reduce the number of unknowns in a game, to prevent superior teams from exploiting a wide range of game states.

This doesn’t mean defensive blocks are unbeatable. Far from it. Good teams can beat them, and more often than not they do. But not because of any particularly innovative techniques. The solution to beating this approach is to do the obvious things, execute them, and wait for the weight of probability to turn one of your half-chances into a goal.

So what are the obvious things?

First, play good crossers on the wings and good headers up front. This is where a ‘classic number 9’ can be useful—a big, bruising player who can out jump and outmuscle the opposing defenders. Think Abby Wambach. But while a strong #9 is important here, the bigger element is simply having wide players capable of posing a serious threat. Defensive blocks are strongest when they’re narrow. The more dangers you can create from wide spaces, the more stretched the defensive lines will have to be, and the more opportunities you’ll find in the middle.

Second, press aggressively when you lose possession. Defensive lines work because they’re tight and controlled. In a true bunker, the weaker team will treat this solidity as paramount, and won’t even try to counter for fear of losing their shape. But very few teams play that way. And the more that the opponent tries to attack, the harder it will be for them to recover. That can be exploited.

Third, shoot from distance. Deep defensive teams will generally offer plenty of space from 30-35 yards out. Coming out to pressure the ball is risky, because it creates holes that can be exploited. But if you have players willing and able to unleash dangerous shots from that range, it makes holding the defensive lines much more difficult.

Fourth, work the ball quickly through tight spaces. No block is impermeable. There will always still be space, just less than usual. A player with exceptional skill on the ball or with superb passing agility will often be able to exploit the tiniest of opportunity. This isn’t easy, and will often result in losing the ball, but that’s a cost that must be paid.

These are all simple ideas, and usually, they’ll get the job done. A defender will make a mistake, get caught out of position, miss a crucial tackle, or lunge in and concede a penalty. Or they’ll just get unlucky. A deflected shot will go in, or a cleared ball will fall right to the feet of an attacker. Moreover, even if they execute perfectly, there will still be half-chances. High-quality finishers aren’t guaranteed to convert those chances, but more often than not, one will eventually fall.

But probability isn’t certainty. Sometimes the chances just don’t fall. And when that happens, there can be a temptation to say that the coach needs to try something else. Unfortunately, the simple reality is that there aren’t really any other options. You just have to keep plugging away, putting the defensive team under pressure, and forcing them to execute.

None of this is to say that coaching has no role to play here. In a game of small margins, every opportunity to exploit an advantage needs to be taken. Good coaches will prepare for defensive teams by working on set pieces, by developing setups that will be capable of exploiting wide spaces, by emphasizing the importance of quick ball movement. They’ll be willing to adapt their approach. Perhaps they’ll bring on a big physical number 9 who normally wouldn’t start. Perhaps they’ll shift to a 442 which allows them to get four wide attackers involved without losing numbers in the middle. And so on.

Of course, it’s always worth looking for improvements in these margins. But marginal improvements are the best that can ever really be hoped for. At the end of the day, these games are usually determined by execution, not tactics.

 

Route Two Soccer: There’s No Such Thing as an ‘International Level’ Player

Posted on by RJ Allen

Today I want to challenge one of the most durable, and least well-founded, myths in women’s soccer: the idea that there is an “international level,” where play is more difficult than the domestic leagues.

This belief is so widespread that, according to a piece this week from Jeff Kassouf which detailed the US Women’s National Team selection process, it’s apparently taken seriously by key principals within US Soccer itself.

[media-credit name=”Jonathan Tannenwald” align=”aligncenter” width=”628″][/media-credit]

But if one applies even some casual scrutiny, the whole idea falls apart like cotton candy in a pool.

The argument here is pretty straightforward. The world contains four top-level international leagues—the NWSL in the US, the Frauen Bundesliga in Germany, the D1F in France, the WSL in England—along with five or six other weaker but still relatively high quality leagues (in Sweden, Spain, Denmark, etc.). But the reality is that the vast majority of the world’s top players are concentrated in those four big leagues.

For a league without much competitive balance, that produces a top tier which is absolutely stacked. In France, for example, Lyon effectively has a version of the French national team, supplemented with a few more of the best players from other countries. In leagues that are more balanced—like the NWSL—there is no single team that can compare with the top international sides, but the distribution of talent means that there are no gimmes. The worst team in the league would probably be a top 20 international side.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the roster.

Sky Blue has been anchored to the bottom of the NWSL table all season. This is a team with Carli Lloyd, Janine Beckie, Savannah McCaskill, Kailen Sheridan, and Thaisa Moreno—all of whom have received recent call-ups for teams in the world top 10. Then you have Raquel Rodriguez, one of the best players on the world’s #32 team. And Rebekah Stott, a regular for the world’s #20 team. Then there are players like Shea Groom, Christina Gibbons, Erica Skroski, and Sarah Killion—who would be regular internationals if they were playing for virtually any country in the world besides the United States.

Put Sky Blue into the next Women’s World Cup, and I think they’d be even money to make it out of the group stage. And this is the roster of the team with one point through eight games in the NWSL.

Then look at some of the teams higher up the table. North Carolina’s first XI is packed with key players for the #1 team in the world, and supplemented with a few key contributors from other top international sides. Put North Carolina into the next World Cup and they’d be among the favorites to win the whole thing.

No one would deny that there are differences between club and international competitions. Some players flourish in a stable club environment, but find it difficult to turn in the same performance when playing for their country. Conversely, some players are at their best in international duty, while only being average for club. There’s a variety of potential factors in play here: the individual psychology of the player, their adaptability and flexibility, the support system around them in different environments. And some of it may simply be random. Normal distribution of chance means some players will always be outliers, but this doesn’t necessarily carry any predictive meaning.

All of which is to say: even if there are some players whose performance levels vary between club and country, there’s certainly no reason to think the imbalance goes only in one direction.

In some cases, the talent pool for a given country will be clogged enough to close out a top-quality player. One could make this argument for the forward position in the US national team, where players like Christen Press and Lynn Williams—arguably among the top dozen strikers in the world—have struggled to find minutes. But that’s very different from saying that a player outperforming their competition at the club level lacks some undefined ‘international quality’ and therefore can’t be expected to transfer her performance between levels.

Long story short: a top player in the NWSL is a top player in world soccer, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that they wouldn’t be able to hang at the international level. A player who can dominate in a league that contains North Carolina, Portland, Orlando, Seattle, Chicago, etc. is one of the world’s best players, full stop.

One can only hope that the decision-makers in US Soccer understand this, and aren’t really taking their ‘5 point’ system seriously.

Working Through The Break: 5 Things NWSL Players Did While On National Duty

Posted on by RJ Allen

Congratulations, NWSL fans: we got through the international break! And even though we didn’t get to see our favorite clubs play this past week, we did get to see some of our favorite NWSL players do some pretty great work on the national team level. In case you missed it, here is a quick recap of just five amazing things that happened this past week for our NWSL stars:

Estefanía Banini’s Free-Kick Goal

Washington Spirit’s Estefanía Banini may have had the greatest goal of the international break. The Argentinian forward had a free-kick opportunity from right outside the box in their match against Brazil, and she did not waste it. She hit a screamer to the top right corner of the net and it left the audience speechless. Unfortunately, Banini’s heroics were not enough to pull out a win for Argentina, but damn if I don’t want to watch this on repeat:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Alex Morgan Did Alex Morgan Things

Four goals in two national team matches? I’ll take it. Alex Morgan was a woman on a mission this past week against Mexico, and that mission was dominance. Morgan played in what looked to be mid-season form as she was the constant threat for the US inside the box. On set pieces, in transition, and with the ball, she seemed to be unstoppable. Add in beautiful passes from Megan Rapinoe and what do we have? A confident striker that was a terror for Mexico’s defense. No doubt she will be taking some of that momentum with her back to Orlando. 

Katie Johnson’s Chip

It was a tough international break for Mexico, but for the NWSL fans out there, they got to see a nice, cheeky little shot from Katie Johnson, the Mexican and Sky Blue forward. Alyssa Naeher hit a bit of a rough patch in the first of the USA-Mexico friendly when coming off the line. Katie Johnson was there to capitalize on that, and it was quite a goal. She chipped Naeher as she came off her line, a decision I’m sure the goalkeeper wishes she could have back. Check it out below.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Carli Lloyd Got 100

With a goal in the first and second of the US-Mexico friendlies, Carli Lloyd achieved the 100 goal milestone that everyone has been waiting for. It was only a matter of time before it happened, and I don’t think anyone was surprised when it did. Though the 100th goal was not a pretty one by any stretch of the imagination, a goal is a goal. And that one, my friends, was a big one. Even if Carli Lloyd likes to pretend that it was no big deal. If you want to watch it again (because who doesn’t?) here’s the clip:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Jess Fishlock Flew Home in Style…Jodie Taylor Did Not.

When England and Wales played this past week in a World Cup qualifier, it made opponents out of Seattle Reign teammates Jess Fishlock and Jodie Taylor. The match was a hard-fought draw, with Wales (and Fishlock) coming out ahead of England. But the weirdest thing that happened was that Taylor and Fishlock both took the same flight back to the United Kingdom—only Fishlock got a business-class seat and Taylor was left in economy. And of course, as all good teammates would, Fishlock made sure Taylor was aware:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Obviously, a lot more happened over the international break, but I only have five slots to fill, so go check out some recaps and brush up on your international soccer IQ. Just make sure you come on back and get ready for tomorrow and Sunday. The NWSL has returned to us, my friends. Let’s not miss a second of it.  

Armchair Centerback: Three Thoughts from the USA vs Mexico Friendlies

Posted on by RJ Allen

The two friendlies this week against Mexico weren’t the highest quality games the US has ever played. The shape wasn’t always compact and both defense and goalkeeping left something to be desired. But these games did show us that when players are “on” they can still be a delight to watch. Here are three thoughts on the US vs Mexico matches. 

The History of Goalkeeper Management Is Catching Up to the USWNT

The US is bad at creating the conditions for world class goalkeepers to be born. At the same time, they’ve also had some of the best goalkeepers in the history of the women’s game. With Briana Scurry and Hope Solo, it’s more that they overcome the underlying conditions than it is any real indication of success in the way goalkeepers are handled in this country. The mismanagement of the current crop—from who is being called in, to who is being capped, to the scarcity of substitutions—is making that very clear.

Scurry and Solo were able to overcome those difficulties because they were generational-quality keepers. Simple stuff, really. But Alyssa Naeher, Ashlyn Harris and Jane Campbell aren’t that lucky. They have each had minutes for the USWNT since Solo’s messy departure. While Ellis has put the most faith (and pressure) on Naeher’s shoulders, it hasn’t quite worked out the way that many expected. She certainly hasn’t locked up the position. In the rare minutes she gets, Harris has been competent if not stellar. And this week, Campbell used her first start to concede twice on corners while standing inside of goal.

Not stellar no matter how you cut it.

Abby Smith and AD Franch are both options that Ellis should look at before she runs out of pre-France minutes. After the last few matches, there is no reason to bank heavily on a return in Naeher’s form, nor would it be safe to treat either backup as ready for primetime. Why not bring in some healthy competition?

The Triple-Edged Sword Reborn

The Triple-Edged Sword was the name given to the attacking trio of Michelle Akers, Carin Jennings-Gabarra and April Heinrichs during the 1991 Women’s World Cup. Alex Morgan, Mallory Pugh and Megan Rapinoe look like they might be aiming to take that nickname for themselves.

Morgan finished the international break with four goals and one assist. Pugh notched two goals. And Rapinoe got an impressive one goal and five assists. The only goal the trio didn’t have a hand in was Carli Lloyd’s Lindsey Horan-assisted goal in the first game.

The three have looked sharp for the national team and with their NWSL clubs. If they can keep this energy up when the likes of Julie Ertz and Sam Mewis rejoin the midfield it could be a windfall for the team. It also puts less pressure on Tobin Heath when she returns. She won’t be the only source of creativity on the field. 

This Defense Is Just Fine.

Ellis wants the ability to go high and low with her outside backs. And after some thinkpieces and a minor freak out on the internet over Crystal Dunn being on the backline for these games, we saw some evidence that suggests it just might work.

Dunn was able to get into the attack nearly as much as if she were a winger. In the second game the mix of Davidson, Sauerbrunn and Sonnett was a fairly balanced and dynamic three-back when Dunn pushed up.

This won’t be the only setup that the USWNT plays, and it shouldn’t be. Very few teams are truly settled, with just one settled backline, one defensive unit, or one unitary style. Having players like Dunn and Kelley O’Hara who can line up on the left or right and on the backline or in the midfield gives Ellis the chance to play a back four, a modified back three or even pull back the wingbacks for a five-woman defense. What’s more, she can do it without making a bunch of substitutions thanks to a lot of flexibility in the individual players.

Having Sauerbrunn on the field is a huge advantage here, which we saw again this week. Her ability to teach in real time—giving Sonnett, Dahlkemper and Davidson room to learn without just stepping in for them—is exceptional. And remember, they’re missing some key players. When O’Hara comes back into the mix, she’ll provide a bit more experience about precisely when to push and when to hold back. Over time, we should see trust building and players working together as a more integrated unit.